State v. Decker, No. 34799.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtDE GRAFF
Citation196 N.W. 600,197 Iowa 41
Decision Date08 January 1924
Docket NumberNo. 34799.
PartiesSTATE v. JACOB DECKER & SONS.

197 Iowa 41
196 N.W. 600

STATE
v.
JACOB DECKER & SONS.

No. 34799.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 8, 1924.


Appeal from District Court, Cerro Gordo County; J. J. Clark, Judge.

The defendant, a corporation, was convicted of the crime of nuisance and appeals. Reversed.

Superseding former opinion in 191 N. W. 359.

[196 N.W. 600]

Blythe Markley, Rule & Smith, of Mason City, for appellant.

Ben J. Gibson, Atty. Gen., and W. P. Butler, Co. Atty., of Mason City, for appellee.


DE GRAFF, J.

The defendant corporation was indicted by the grand jury of Cerro Gordo county, Iowa, for the crime of nuisance. The indictment is challenged. The act charged is alleged to be contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and therefore it is necessary in the first instance to quote the terms and provisions of the statute upon which the indictment is predicated. The statute reads:

“The erecting, continuing or using any building or other place for the exercise of any trade, employment or manufacture, which, by occasioning noxious exhalations, offensive smells or other annoyances, becomes injurious and dangerous to the health, comfort or property of individuals or the public; the causing or suffering any offal, filth or noisome substance to be collected or to remain in any place to the prejudice of others; the obstructing or impeding without legal authority the passage of any navigable river, harbor or collection of water; or the corrupting or rendering unwholesome or impure the water of any river, stream or pond, or unlawfully diverting the same from its natural course or state, to the injury or prejudice of others.” Code, § 5078.

[196 N.W. 601]

In passing upon the ruling of the trial court on the demurrer which questions the sufficiency of the indictment, it is necessary to analyze the statutory definition of the crime charged. Clearly the statute classifies nuisances as follows: (1) The erecting, continuing or using any building or other place for the exercise of any trade, employment or manufacture, which, by occasioning noxious exhalations, offensive smells or other annoyances, becomes injurious and dangerous to the health, comfort or property of individuals or the public; (2) the causing or suffering any offal, filth or noisome substance to be collected or to remain in any place to the prejudice of others; (3) the obstructing or impeding without legal authority the passage of any navigable river, harbor or collection of water; (4) the corrupting or rendering unwholesome or impure water of any river, stream or pond, or unlawfully diverting the same from its natural course or state, to the injury or prejudice of others.

Where does the instant indictment classify? It does not charge the erection or establishment of a place, and the trial court so charged in one of its instructions. Let us turn for a moment to the indictment itself. It reads:

“The said Jacob E. Decker & Sons, a corporation, on or about the 1st day of January, in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nineteen (1919), in the county and state aforesaid, and upon divers days and times since and up to the finding of this indictment, did, wrongfully and unlawfully, commit, place, deposit, discharge and run into, and cause to be committed, placed, deposited, discharged and run into, a certain creek and stream of water situated in said county, known as ‘Lime creek,’ through a sewer which runs from the defendant's packing plant in the city of Mason City in said county, and empties directly into the said Lime creek, quantities of sewage, filth, offal, acids, and other poisonous substances, to the grand jury unknown; that by reason of the emptying of said sewer into the said Lime creek in said county, as aforesaid, in violation of law, and the committing, placing, depositing, discharging and running into said stream, through said sewer, quantities of filth, offal, acids, and other poisonous substances, in said unlawful manner by the said defendant,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Mast v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., Civil Action No. 410.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • August 9, 1948
    ...v. Chicago R. I. & P. R. Co., 1924, 198 Iowa 62, 199 N.W. 310, 312; Miller & Kizer v. Des Moines City R. Co., 1923, 196 Iowa 1033, 196 N.W. 600, 602; Carr v. Interurban R. Co., 1919, 185 Iowa 872, 171 N.W. 167, 168. In a case involving the rule of last clear chance, it is reversible error t......
  • State v. Korth, No. 38594.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 10, 1928
    ...involuntary manslaughter must, of course, allege the facts relied upon to make out the offense. State v. Decker & Sons, 197 Iowa, 41, 196 N. W. 600;State v. Sexsmith, 200 Iowa, 1244, 206 N. W. 100. That is what was done in this case. The motion was properly overruled. [4] II. The sufficienc......
  • Hochman v. State, 1 Div. 688
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • January 24, 1956
    ...in an effort to comply with the terms of a notice from the Board of Health. This action was proper. In State v. Jacob E. Decker & Sons, 197 Iowa 41, 191 N.W. 359, opinion modified 197 Iowa 41, 196 N.W. 600, the court held that the effort of accused and the municipal counsel to cooperate in ......
  • State v. Paden, No. 35860.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 10, 1925
    ...Code 1924. [1] An indictment for public nuisance must allege specific facts and circumstances (State v. Decker & Sons, 197 Iowa, 41, 196 N. W. 600), and the same rule prevails in charging a conspiracy “to cause and suffer a public nuisance.” The statute further provides: “Upon a trial for c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Mast v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., Civil Action No. 410.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • August 9, 1948
    ...v. Chicago R. I. & P. R. Co., 1924, 198 Iowa 62, 199 N.W. 310, 312; Miller & Kizer v. Des Moines City R. Co., 1923, 196 Iowa 1033, 196 N.W. 600, 602; Carr v. Interurban R. Co., 1919, 185 Iowa 872, 171 N.W. 167, 168. In a case involving the rule of last clear chance, it is reversible error t......
  • State v. Korth, No. 38594.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 10, 1928
    ...involuntary manslaughter must, of course, allege the facts relied upon to make out the offense. State v. Decker & Sons, 197 Iowa, 41, 196 N. W. 600;State v. Sexsmith, 200 Iowa, 1244, 206 N. W. 100. That is what was done in this case. The motion was properly overruled. [4] II. The sufficienc......
  • Hochman v. State, 1 Div. 688
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • January 24, 1956
    ...in an effort to comply with the terms of a notice from the Board of Health. This action was proper. In State v. Jacob E. Decker & Sons, 197 Iowa 41, 191 N.W. 359, opinion modified 197 Iowa 41, 196 N.W. 600, the court held that the effort of accused and the municipal counsel to cooperate in ......
  • State v. Paden, No. 35860.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 10, 1925
    ...Code 1924. [1] An indictment for public nuisance must allege specific facts and circumstances (State v. Decker & Sons, 197 Iowa, 41, 196 N. W. 600), and the same rule prevails in charging a conspiracy “to cause and suffer a public nuisance.” The statute further provides: “Upon a trial for c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT